Funding of agricultural research and development is under attack from several quarters.

Beef producers have made impassioned submissions to a Senate review examining cattle levies, Australia's largest horticulture producer Costa is objecting to levy increases, and independent David Leyonhjelm has taken up the cudgels in the Senate.

But the Australian system of farmers funding agricultural marketing and research, matched in part by the Federal Government, is held up as one of the best in the world, according to Professor Mark Adams.

As Dean of the Agriculture and Environment Faculty at the University of Sydney, Professor Adams says all developed countries have public funding for agricultural research, but Australia's is the most transparent.

"People can see that public funding is matched by private funding.

"In a lot of places there's not a lot of private funding, or if it is, it's a few corporate players.

"The advantage of the Australian system is 'mum and dad farmers' contribute and that's then matched by public funds."

At Sydney University and others, R&D corporation funding for agriculture helps fill the so called 'valley of death', the space between fundamental research and a commercial tool for farmers.

The soils research is a classic example.

"Soils research is a place where no-one really wants to fund soils, because it's hard to sell," said Professor Adams.

"Where to use fertiliser, soil mapping, integration with GIS systems, all that stuff has been fabulous, huge value for farmers, funded by the RDCs as well as by pure basic research funding agencies."

In the United States, there's the Land Grant model for funding universities, which takes taxpayer dollars and uses them to fund research through select universities.

The US Department of Agriculture funds research, but it's not transparent, as Australia's system is.

Fifteen Research and Development Corporations

In Australia, fifteen Research and Development bodies for agriculture, forestry and fisheries spending an estimated total of $750 million a year, two-thirds of that directly into research, with the Commonwealth contributing $220m a year.

Recent analysis by the Australian agricultural economic forecaster ABARES found that for every dollar spent in broadacre research, there was a $12 return within ten years in productivity improvements, but the pity for farmers is they don’t always see higher profits.

Meat and Livestock Australia

On the eve of announcing a major restructure of MLA, the new managing director Richard Norton makes a strident defence of how levies are spent, using the grass-fed beef levy as an example.

“$3.66 of the $5 goes to marketing, 92 cents goes to R&D, which is matched by government, 29 cents goes to collecting the levy and 13 cents to Animal Health Australia.”

Mr Norton says the industry’s marketing dollars are well spent.

“Japan, for example, traditionally our largest market for red meat, Australia has 54 per cent market share, higher than in 2003 pre-BSE (mad cow) in the US. Unprompted consumer awareness is 88 per cent, and only 10 per cent for New Zealand beef."

Coming from the private sector, as head of Landmark rural services, Mr Norton sees the farmer levy and government-matched funding system for research as unique.

“The Australian system of levies is something envied by the rest of the world.

"(It's responsible for) the type of market awareness in Japan and Korea of Australian beef, which in Korea is at 86 per cent of unprompted awareness. Could you imagine how many billions of dollars for a company or country to get that type of awareness?”

Horticulture Australia

Horticulture represents $9 billion worth of fruit, nuts, vegetables, turf and nurseries, but no longer are they all small businesses.

Joint Australia-US venture Costa, Australia's largest horticulture producer across tomatoes, citrus, bananas, berries and mushrooms, pays close to $3 million in levies to Horticulture Australia Limited (HAL), and is campaigning against an increased marketing levy in mushrooms.

Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm has taken up the cudgels in the Senate, promising to vote down the mushroom levy increase on August 26.

But John Lloyd, chief executive of HAL, defends the system.

“It has to serve the interests of the individual levy payers. However, there has to be a balance in the levy system, the investment given to us by government, 10 to 15 years out.

"I think if the levy system does both those things, then it’s serving the levy payers and the wider Australian community well.”